Chapter 3
Airport Design Standards and Runway Length
Airport Design Standards
The selection of appropriate design standards
for the development of airfield facilities is based
primarily upon the characteristics of the aircraft
projected to use the Airport on a regular basis,
along with the types of approaches to be
provided to each runway end. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) has established a
set of airport classifications known as the Airport
Reference Code (ARC) to relate airport design
criteria to the operational and physical
characteristics of the most demanding airplane.
The ARC has two components relating to the
design aircraft: aircraft approach category and
airplane design group.
Aircraft Approach Category – Designated by a
letter (A – E), this component describes the
operational characteristic of aircraft approach
speed, with ‘A’ being the slowest and ‘E’ being
the fastest.
Airplane Design Group – Designated by a
Roman Numeral (I-VI), the second component
relates to the physical characteristic of airplane
wingspan with “I” being the shortest and “VI”
being the longest.
The design aircraft is defined by the FAA as the
most critical type of aircraft using, or anticipated
to use the airport on a regular basis (at least 500
operations per year). Table 3A, Airport Design
Standards, provides a comprehensive list of key
airport design elements potentially applicable to
PMRA from the present through the long term.
Other critical airplane characteristics include:
• Airplane Weight
• Landing Gear Type and Characteristics
• Runway Length Requirements
Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1
As determined in Chapter 2, Activity Projections
and Design Aircraft Selection, regularly
scheduled operations by the Bombardier Q-400
are sufficient to place the airport into ARC C-III.
In the longer term (20+ years), regular
operations by large corporate jets could increase
the ARC to D-III.
For purposes of developing an initial template
from which to evaluate runway alignment
alternatives, the design standards will assume a
fully compliant ARC C-III airport equipped with a
precision instrument approach with visibility
minimums of ½-mile to at least one runway end.
The template may later be refined to consider
other combinations of runway lengths,
instrument approach minimums, instrument
procedures, operating considerations, and
topographic constraints to the extent necessary
to optimize the balance of the various evaluation
criteria.
Aircraft Approach Category
ƒ Category A: airplane approach speed < 91 knots.
ƒ Category B: airplane approach speed at least 91 knots but
<121 knots.
ƒ Category C: airplane approach speed at least 121 knots
but <141 knots.
ƒ Category D: airplane approach speed at least 141 knots
but <166 knots.
ƒ Category E: airplane approach speed of at least 166 knots.
Airplane Design Group
ƒ Group I: airplane wingspan up to but not including 49 ft.
ƒ Group II: airplane wingspan at least 49 ft but <79 ft.
ƒ Group III: airplane wingspan at least 79 ft but <118 ft.
ƒ Group IV: airplane wingspan at least 118 ft but <171 ft.
ƒ Group V: airplane wingspan at least 171 ft but < 214 ft.
ƒ Group VI: airplane wingspan of at least 214 ft.
3-1
CHAPTER 3 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY LENGTH

Table 3A
Airport Design Standards
Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport

Item FAA Airport Design Standards1

Airport Reference Code Existing2 B-III3,4 B-III B-III C-III. 5 C-III. 5 D-III6 D-III6
Aircraft Approach Speed <121 kts <121 kts <121 kts <121 kts <141 kts <141 kts <141kts <141 kts
Aircraft Wingspan <90 ft. <90 ft. <118 ft. <118 ft. <118 ft. <118 ft. 93.4 ft. 93.4 ft.
Aircraft Tail Height (lbs) < 45 ft. < 45 ft. < 45 ft. < 45 ft. < 45 ft. < 45 ft. ft ft.
< 45 < 45 ft.
Aircraft Weight Group (lbs) <65,000 <65,000 <65,000 <65,000 <175,000 <175,000 <95,000 <95,000

Approach Visibility Minimums ≥ 1 mile ≥ 1 mile ¾ mile ≤ ½ mile ¾ mile ≤ ½ mile ¾ mile ≤ ½ mile

Runway Design
Length (feet) 6,7307 5 – 6,5008 5 – 6,5008 5 – 6,5008 6 – 80008 6 – 8,0008 7 – 8,5008 7 – 8,5008
Width 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft.8 100 ft.8 100 ft. 100 ft.
Blast Pad
Width N/A 140 ft. 140 ft. 140 ft. 140 ft. 140 ft. 140 ft. 140 ft.
Length beyond Runway End N/A 200 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft.
Safety Area
Width 300 ft. 300 ft. 300 ft. 400 ft. 500 ft. 500 ft. 552 ft. 552 ft.
Length prior to threshold 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft.
Length beyond Stop end 1,000 ft.10 600 ft. 600 ft. 800 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft.
Obstacle Free Zone11
Shape12 A A A C A C A C
Width (W) 341 ft.13 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft.
Vertical Height (H) 14, 15 NA NA NA 43 ft. NA 43 ft. NA 45 ft.
Slope (S) NA NA NA 6:1 NA 6:1 NA 6:1
Object Free Area
Width 578 ft.16 800 ft. 800 ft. 800 ft. 800 ft. 800 ft. 800 ft. 800 ft.
Length prior to threshold17 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft. 600 ft.
Length beyond Stop End17 1,000 ft.18 600 ft. 600 ft. 800 ft. 1,000 ft 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft.
Gradient (maximum) 1.04% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5%19 1.5%19 1.5%19 1.5%19
Runway Setbacks
From Runway Centerline to:
Hold Line20 155 ft. 200 ft. 200 ft. 250 ft. 250 ft. 250 ft. 272 ft. 272 ft.
Parallel Taxiway 200 ft. 300 ft. 300 ft. 350 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft.
Aircraft Parking Line 280 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 400 ft. 500 ft. 500 ft. 500 ft. 500 ft.
Building Restriction Line21 320 ft.22 495 ft. 745 ft. 745 ft. 745 ft. 745 ft. 745 ft. 745 ft.
Taxiway Design
Width 60 ft. 54 ft.23 54 ft.23 54 ft.23 54 ft.23 54 ft.23 54 ft.23 54 ft.23
Safety Area Width 90 ft. 90 ft. 118 ft. 118 ft. 118 ft. 118 ft. 94 ft. 94 ft.
Taxiway and Taxilane Setbacks
From Taxiway Centerline to:
Parallel Taxiway/Taxilane 24, a N/A 118 ft. 152 ft. 152 ft. 152 ft. 152 ft. 122 ft. 122 ft.
Fixed or Movable Object b 78 ft. 73 ft. 93 ft. 93 ft. 93 ft. 93 ft. 76 ft. 76 ft.
From Taxilane Centerline to:
Fixed or Movable Object c N/A 64 ft. 81 ft. 81 ft. 81 ft. 81 ft. 66 ft. 66 ft.
Runway Protection Zone25
Width at Inner End 500 ft.26 500 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft. 1,000 ft.
Width at Outer End 700 ft. 26 700 ft. 1,510 ft. 1,750 ft. 1,510 ft. 1,750 ft. 1,510 ft. 1,750 ft.
Length 1,000 ft. 26 1,000 ft. 1,700 ft. 2,500 ft. 1,700 ft. 2,500 ft. 1,700 ft. 2,500 ft.

3-2 Pullman–Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1

 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY LENGTH CHAPTER 3

NOTES:

1
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Change 9, Airport Design (September 2005).
2
Existing Non-Standard Conditions shown in SHADED, BOLD TYPE.
3
Existing airfield design standards applicable to Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport based on approach category B and 90-foot wingspans.
4
Aircraft currently in use at Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport.
5
Design standards most applicable to long range planning.
6
Airport design standards specific to Gulfstream-V / Bombardier Global Express, and Q-400
7
Current Published Length (Declared Distances Apply)
8
Approximate runway length requirement for typical aircraft in the specified design group.
9
For airplane design group III serving airplanes with maximum certificated takeoff weights greater than 150,000 pounds, the standard runway width is 150
feet, the shoulder width is 25 feet, and the blast pad width is 200 feet.
10
Declared distances apply. RSA length available beyond declared stop end of runway.
11
Object Free Zone normally extends 200 feet beyond end of runway; additional length is required for runways with approach light systems.
12
Runway Obstacle Free Zone
cross-section shapes:
13
141 feet north and 200 feet south.
14
Applies to runways with approach visibility minimums < ¾ mile. Height varies according to aircraft wingspan and increases 3 feet per 1,000 feet of airport
elevation.
15
Indicated dimensions for runways with approach visibility minimums <¾ mile are for Category I instrument runways. Criteria for Category II and Category III
runways are more restrictive.
16
278 feet north (aircraft parking and building) and 300 feet south (terrain). Terrain restricts OFA beyond runway ends to less than standard width.
17
OFA length beyond runway end coincides with RSA end.
18
The width of the OFA beyond the runway ends is less than standard due to terrain.
19
Maximum of 0.8% in first and last quarters of runway.
20
Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5340-1J, Standards for Airport Markings (April 2005).
21
The FAA no longer has fixed-distance standards for the Building Restriction Line location. The indicated setback distances are based on providing 7:1
transitional slope clearance over a 35-foot building situated at the same base elevation as the adjacent runway and can be adjusted in accordance with local
conditions.
22
Actual Distance between the existing runway centerline and the nearest building structure (T-hangar units).
23
50 feet required for Airport Design Group (ADG) – III. Taxiway width is greater than standard to provide adequate taxiway edge safety margin for the Q-400,
which has an undercarriage width of 33.2 feet.
24
Assumes same size airplane uses both the first taxiway/taxilane and the adjacent taxiway/taxilane. Distance can be reduced if secondary taxiway/taxilane is
limited to use only by smaller airplanes.
25
Dimensions provided are for the runway direction having the lowest approach minimums. Opposing runway direction may use a smaller RPZ.
26
Approach and departure RPZs are in effect due to the application of declared distances.

Modification of Standards:

The values obtained from the following equations may be used to show that a modification of standards will provide an acceptable level of safety.

a.
Taxiway centerline to parallel taxiway/taxilane centerline equals 1.2 times airplane wingspan plus 10 feet.
b.
Taxiway centerline to fixed or movable object equals 0.7 times airplane wingspan plus 10 feet.
c.
Taxilane centerline to fixed or movable object equals 0.6 times airplane wingspan plus 10 feet.

Table 3A, continued

Pullman–Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1 3-3

CHAPTER 3 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY LENGTH

Runway Length Requirements the airport for an individual airplane or a family

grouping of airplanes. Although similar to the
FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5325-4B, previous analysis for determining ARC, it should
Runway Length Requirements for Airport Design be noted that the determination of a critical
(July 2005), provides guidelines for airport aircraft for purposes of making runway length
designers and planners for determining recommendations is a distinctly separate
recommended runway lengths for new runways evaluation.
or extensions to existing runways at civil
airports. The AC highlights the fact that the Step No. 2, Identify the Most Demanding
length of usable runway length made available Airplanes
by an airport may not be entirely suitable for all
The primary purpose of this step is to determine
types of airplane operations. Key factors
which method will ultimately be used for
influencing the suitability of available runway
establishing the recommended runway length.
length include:
When the maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of
ƒ airport elevation the listed airplanes is 60,000
ƒ temperature pounds or less, the
ƒ wind velocity Runway Length Definitions: recommended length is
ƒ airplane operating weights ƒ Critical/Design Airplanes- The
determined according to a
airplane(s) resulting in the longest
ƒ flap settings recommended runway length. family grouping of airplanes
ƒ runway surface condition ƒ Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW)- with similar characteristics.
ƒ runway gradient The maximum certificated weight for When the MTOW of listed
the airplane at takeoff.
ƒ presence of obstructions airplanes is over 60,000
ƒ Small Airplane- An airplane of 12,500
ƒ locally imposed noise pounds or less MTOW. pounds, the recommended
abatement restrictions ƒ Large Airplane- An airplane of more runway length is determined
ƒ other locally imposed than 12,500 pounds MTOW. according to individual
prohibitions ƒ Regional Jets (RJs)- For purposes of
runway length recommendations, an RJ
airplanes. Regional jets,
is a commercial jet airplane that regardless of MTOW, are
According to this AC, the carries fewer than 100 passengers. evaluated on an individual
overall goal is to construct an
Initial Design Assumptions: basis even though many of
available runway length that is ƒ No obstructions in the departure area. these aircraft types have
suitable for the forecasted ƒ Zero wind.
ƒ Wet runway surfaces. MTOW of less than 60,000
critical design airplanes. To
ƒ Zero effective runway gradient. pounds.
accomplish this, the evaluation
uses a five step procedure Based on the list of aircraft
recommended by the FAA. identified in Table 3B and the types of activity
presently occurring and forecast to occur
Step No. 1, Identify Potential Critical through the 20-year planning horizon and
Airplanes beyond (see Table 2-20), the most demanding
aircraft can be identified as follows:
A list of potential design airplanes and their
associated characteristics is contained in Table ƒ Current– Citation-X (35,700 pounds)
3B, Airplane Characteristics. These, or similar ƒ Long Term– CRJ-700/900 or similar
aircraft, are anticipated to use the airport on a
regular basis through the established 20-year
planning horizon. Federally funded projects
require that critical design airplanes have at
least 500 or more annual itinerant operations at

3-4 Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1

 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY LENGTH CHAPTER 3

Table 3B
Airplane Characteristics
Table
Typical Runway Length 3C for Various Aircraft Types
Requirements
Estimated Departures by Stage Length (Citation X)
App. ARC TO LDG LDG
Aircraft
Stage Length PAX
(NM)Seats MTOW
2005 MLW1 Wingspan
2010
1
Length1 2015 20251
Speed class Length Length1 Length 2
< 500 63 127
Commercial Turbo-Props 187 278
Q200 3 500 – 999 37-39 36,300
40 34,500 85.0
88 73.0 101
142 B-III 5,000
232 2,650 3,048
Q4003 1,000 – 1,999 68-78 64,500
55 61,750 93.3
127 107.8 125
210 C-III 6,100
351 5,010 5,762
Commercial Turbo-Jets
> 2,000 0 11 29 65
CRJ 200 LR 3 50 53,000 47,000 69.7 87.1 140 C-II 8,300 5,200 5,980
Total Departures 205 353 568 926
ERJ 145 3 50 46,275 42,549 65.8 98.0 135 C-II 7,874 4,669 5,369
CRJ 700 LR 3 70-75 72,750 67,000 76.3 106.8 130 C-II 6,372 5,100 5,865
ERJ 170 4 70-78 82,011 72,310 85.3 98.1 140 C-III 5,784 4,320 4,968
CRJ 900 LR 3 90 84,500 73,500 76.3 119.4 125 C-II 8,650 7,000 8,050
ERJ 190 4 98-108 105,359 94,799 94.2 118.9 140 C-III 7,695 4,520 5,198
Business / Charter Turbo-Props
Beechcraft King Air 350 4 9-15 15,000 15,000 57.9 46.7 100 B-II 3,527 2,903 3,338
Business / Charter Turbo-Jets
Raytheon Hawker 800XP 4 8-12 28,000 23,350 51.4 51.1 126 C-II 5,939 3,128 3,597
Citation X 5 12 35,700 31,800 63.6 72.4 132 C-II 7,232 6,653 7,651
Dassault Falcon 2000 4 8-19 41,300 39,300 63.4 66.3 126 C-II 5,922 3,580 4,117
Gulfstream IV 3 3-19 73,900 66,000 77.8 88.3 161 D-II 6,432 3,847 4,424
Gulfstream V 3 3-19 91,000 75,300 93.5 96.4 156 D-III 6,078 3,269 3,759
Global Express 4 8-19 95,250 78,600 94.0 99.4 126 C-III 7,960 4,200 4,830
Airbus A-319 6 2-124 166,450 137,800 111.8 111.0 130 C-III 6,500 5,375 6,181
Boeing Business Jet (BBJ) 6 2-63 171,000 134,000 117.4 110.3 132 C-III 7,200 5,800 6,670
Boeing Business Jet (BBJ2) 6 2-100 174,200 146,300 117.4 129.5 142 D-III 8,500 6,550 7,533

Notes
1 Aircraft specification from manufacturer website and manuals.
2 LDG runway length requirements increased by 15% in anticipation of revised certification standards.
3 Aircraft manufacturer charts using: airport elevation, mean maximum temperatures, wet/slippery conditions, maximum takeoff weight and maximum structural landing weight.
4 Approximated using FAA adjustment conversion calculator from sea level, standard atmospheric conditions
5 Performance specifications in use by existing based operator using: TO Flaps-15, LDG Flaps-Full, Temp-28C, Wind-0, Thrust Reverse Avail.- Yes, Weight- MTOW, MLW
6 Aircraft manufacturer charts using: airport elevation, mean maximum temperatures, max weight for up to 2,000 mile trip length, and max structural landing weight.

Table 3C, Estimated Departures by Stage Table takeoff weights necessary for fuel carriage and
3C, Estimated Departures by Stage Length, consumption. The overall trend includes an
groups the Citation-X operations into stage increasing shift to longer stage lengths as the
distances. Generally, longer trips require higher existing operator’s business expands regionally.

Table 3C
Estimated Departures by Stage Length (Citation X)
Stage Length (NM) 2005 2010 2015 2025
< 500 63 127 187 278
500 – 999 40 88 142 232
1,000 – 1,999 55 127 210 351
> 2,000 0 11 29 65
Total Departures 205 353 568 926

Pullman–Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1 3-5

CHAPTER 3 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY LENGTH

Step No. 3, Determine Method 60% Useful Load (100% Fleet) 90% Useful Load (100% Fleet)
This step compares the aircraft
identified in Step No. 2 with an
FAA Chart which categorizes
potential design airplanes into 3
groupings according to MTOW:
small aircraft, large aircraft, and 8,675

regional jets. Small airplanes are

further subdivided according to
approach speeds and passenger
seating. The regional jet category
essentially requires that small air 6,200

carrier jets be evaluated

individually even if they have a
MTOW of less than 60,000
pounds. Accordingly, the
appropriate planning references for 83º 83º

determining runway length Note: Useful load consists of passengers, cargo, and fuel.
Adjustment: Increased takeoff length at a rate of 10 feet for each foot of elevation difference between
recommendations are as follows: high and low points.

Current—Use family grouping of Source: FAA Advisory Circular 150/5325-4B (7/1/2005)

large airplanes (reference AC
150/5325-4B, Chapter 3). In cases
where the airplane planning
manual shows a longer runway
length requirement than would
otherwise be recommended, then the airplane
manufacturer guidelines should be used and the
recommendations should follow the same
guidance which would apply to individual large
airplane requirements.
Long-Term—Use individual large airplane
references provided by the airplane
manufacturer (reference AC 150/5325-4B,
Chapter 4 and airplane manufacturer
references).
Step No. 4, Select the Recommended
Runway Length
Only after all of the data required under Step 3
has been gathered and analyzed can a
recommended runway length be derived. This
analysis is described as follows:
Figure 3A
Recommended Runway Lengths
(Large Airplanes of 60,000 Pounds or Less)
Current—Apply FAA guidance to evaluate all
large turbo-jets with MTOW of less than 60,000
pounds as a single group. The grouping is
divided into two categories: airplanes comprising
75% of these large airplanes and airplanes
comprising 100% of these large airplanes. The
FAA lists the Citation-X in the remaining 25% of
Airplanes that Make Up 100% of the fleet. Given
the number of operations by these aircraft, the
second classification is the most appropriate.
Figure 3A, Recommended Runway Lengths
(Large Airplanes of 60,000 Pounds or Less),
depicts the runway length requirements using
useful load factors of 60% and 90%,
respectively. The two input parameters include
temperature (average mean high of the hottest
month) and airport elevation resulted in an
unadjusted recommended length of 6,200 feet
for 60% useful load and 8,625 feet at 90%.

3-6 Pullman-Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1

 AIRPORT DESIGN STANDARDS AND RUNWAY LENGTH
The Citation-X operator’s manual was consulted
for purposes of comparison. Using the same
input parameters assumed for the above
analysis, the following results were derived for
this specific aircraft:
o Takeoff (flat / wet runway): 7,127’
o Landing (flat / wet runway): 6,557’
To evaluate the effect that runway gradient
would have on future operations a 1% gradient
was applied to achieve the following:
o Takeoff (1% gradient / dry): 7,156’
o Takeoff (1% gradient / wet): 7,731’
FAA guidance permits the evaluation of a family
of airplanes which results in a recommended
runway length of 8,625 feet. A flat runway of at
least 7,127 feet in length (adjusted for net
gradient) and retaining a minimum unadjusted
landing length available of 6,557 feet would
remove most restrictions. The aircraft
performance charts also revealed that a runway
length of 7,500 feet would maximize the
operational utility of the aircraft up to ambient
temperatures of 90° F (32° C). Above this
temperature, the airplane experiences climb
gradient restrictions which reduce its utility (e.g.,
takeoff weight). As a result, the optimum runway
length (unadjusted for grade) for the Citation-X
at the existing PMRA site is 7,500 feet.
Long-Term—The 70-seat Bombardier CRJ-700
(a “regional” or “small” jet) was evaluated for
long term planning. The following parameters
were evaluated using the airport planning
manual (APM) available for the CRJ-200: 83°F,
current airport elevation, zero wind, flat runway,
and maximum usable flap settings. The
unadjusted runway length requirements were
determined as follows:
CRJ-700 (70-seat RJ)
o Takeoff— 6,950 feet
o Landing— 5,125 feet
Pullman–Moscow Regional Airport Master Plan − Phase 1
CHAPTER 3
For comparison, the same input data was
entered into the smaller and older version, the
CRJ-200 with the following results:
CRJ-200 (50-seat RJ)
o Takeoff— 8,600 feet
o Landing— 5,200 feet
Although the general trend points to increasing
volumes of 70-120 seat “small” jets, it also
points to improved engine and wing designs
which result in shorter overall runway length
requirements. A final comparison evaluated the
90-seat CRJ-900:
CRJ-900 (90-seat)
o Takeoff— 8,000 feet
o Landing— 6,950 feet
In conclusion, for purposes of long-term
planning, the following unadjusted runway
lengths are recommended:
o Takeoff— 8,000 feet
o Landing— 7,000 feet
Step No. 5, Adjustments
The initial runway length calculations
documented in the proceeding steps are
adequate for developing a design template from
which to develop and screen alternative runway
alignments. Although runway surfaces should be
constructed as flat as possible, the surrounding
topography may restrict this potential for some
alignments. As a result the runway lengths that
are ultimately recommended for final evaluation
may be adjusted to counter the net effect of
sloping terrain on airplane departures.
3-7